Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Yep. An infinite loop. We will keep being asked if frames look like startle reactions. Despite having already said no. That there is no way to gauge how startled somebody is from the quality of film. Of listing other possibilities. (As people reacting to somebody in the car is apparently impossible?)

So let's take another trip around the Mobius loop.

Robert. Supply ANY kind of physical evidence for additional bullets then we can consider if it is a good explanation for the "reactions" you have thus far convinced nobody of.

Physical evidence is a large number of types. Any will do.

It is that simple to convince us.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

According to the Warren Commission, "most" of the relevant witnesses said they heard a single early shot and then a pair of closely bunched shots at the very end of the attack.

If they were correct about the closely bunched shots at the end, and those shots came from unsuppressed, high powered rifles, we should expected to see two distinct sets of startle reactions following each of them.

You waste bandwidth, posting unsupported assertions. The simple fact is, that if JFK and Connally were hit at 223 by a shot from a high powered rifle, everyone would have heard it, and we would have seen reactions among the other limo passengers like we see following 285 and 313.

I have one dead President and one governor of Texas, who had multiple wounds from a single round that proves me right.

You jack squat.

Quote:

The bullet struck next to vertebrae which housed nerves that connected to the elbow sensors and other parts of the arm. That's why his arms rose. He was never reaching for his throat and his hands never came close to his throat.

Yes, the word for that is "Shock"

Quote:

But the nerve stimulation did not require a high velocity bullet. A .22 caliber weapon or an ice pick could have done the job just as well.

Maybe, but no .22 round was found. Then there's the fact that the .22 round doesn't have the force to pass through the body into Connally, through his body and back into his body.

A subsonic round might not have done much damage at all. That's why no professional assassin would use such a round.

Your lack of ballistic knowledge has sunk your theory.

Had you done any serious research into the Mannlicher-Carcano you'd know that it was the ONLY weapon that could account for the damage to Kennedy's head, and for the multiple wounds of Connally.

You'd know that:

The Carcano was the weapon of choice for those competing in 1,000 yard contests at the turn of the last century.

The rifle had a Gain Twist ratio of 1:8" (higher than the 1:7 twist of the M-16A2)

The Carcano's bolt-action mechanism was desgined for combat, and a skilled user could cycle rounds and fire within 2 seconds.

Oswald practiced dry-firing speed drills while sitting on his porch, and amazed other shooters at the range with his speed and accuracy.

The rounds Oswald used had a velocity of 2,700fps, and had a heavy 160 grain load, that combined with the Carcano's twist rate made them extremely accurate.

After WWI, these bullets became popular with Big Game hunters because they could penetrate elephant skulls.

The Italian Army loved the MC because the round could pass through multiple bodies to wound more soldiers economically..

The bullets Oswald used can penetrate 4 feet of Ponderosa wood, and 2 feet of Elm wood.

Oswald's bullets traveled at 2,700 feet per second. The speed of sound at sea level is 1,125 feet per second. If you can't figure out why nobody in the car hears the shots that's a big problem. Throw in the shock, terror, and confusion of being the target of a nut with a rifle and the reactions of the people in the limo become clear.

Hank has won on every point he's argued with you. He must have better things to do now.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

let's deal with the arguments you've been evading.

I've read these arguments over and over and have repeatedly explained why they fail to convince me.
You have merely ignored my responses, and continue to repeat yourself as if you have never been answered.

It's even more ridiculous to argue that three people simultaneously ducking and two spinning around at enormous speed, was NOT caused by a loud and startling noise

I am still waiting for you to present any documentation showing that "spinning around" can be a reflex startle reaction, in the precise sense of a spasmodic, involuntary movement.

The single Britannica quote you have brought forth to back you up refers to "a"—singular, specific—spasmodic avoidance movement of the head" (emphasis added) and clearly refers to the same muscle contractions in the neck and shoulders the other literature on the topic describes.

The Altgens #6 photo, taken at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 255,
provides important information, confirming when Secret Service agents
who are visible in that photo, carried out actions that they reported or
testified to. Please examine this segment from that photo:

Special Agent Taylor was riding three cars behind the Presidential
limousine in the Vice President's security car. At that time he was
sitting in the back seat next to the left, rear door. Taylor stated in
his original Treasury Dept. report that he first heard a single gunshot.

"Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are
unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible
firecracker... As a matter of course, I opened the door and prepared to
get out of the car. In the instant that my left foot touched the ground,
I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots."

But in the Altgens photo, it is easy to see that Taylor has not yet
stepped out of the car, and is yet to hear those "two more bangs".

It is also easy to see Secret Service agent George Hickey who was riding
in the back seat of the President's followup car. This is from Hickey's
original Treasury dept. report,

"After a very short distance I heard a loud report.. I stood up and
looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it.. Perhaps 2 or
3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at
the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was
straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and
looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports
which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different
in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that
there seemed to be practically no time element between them."

The Altgens photo makes it easy to confirm Hickey's claim that he stood
and looked to the rear, in response to that first noise. But obviously,
he was still turned to the rear at Zapruder frame 255, and yet to turn
back toward the President and hear those two shots.

Sometimes a witness's errors can be more enlightening than the parts of
his story that are correct. Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who sat
in the right-rear seat of the Secret Service followup car, next to
Hickey, was cited by Gerald Posner in his book, Case Closed in support
of Posner's theory that shots were fired at frames, 160, 224 and 312,
placing the first two, noticeably closer together than the last two.

"..I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from
the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was
seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the
moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another
fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches
down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit
the right rear high of the President's head."

At a glance, Bennett's words do seem to be consistent with Posner's
theory. But besides contradicting most other witnesses, this
interpretation presented another problem. Why, if the first two shots
were closer together than the last two, as Posner suggested, did Bennett
say that the final shot "followed immediately² after the second? He
certainly did not describe the earlier shots that way.

Another question arises from his claim that he "saw the shot hit the
President" in the back. Obviously, the bullet in flight was not visible
to the human eye, and the tiny 4x7 mm. hole would have initially, been
invisible on Kennedy's dark suit coat. Of course, several seconds after
the bullet struck, a bloodstain appeared, which would have made the
wound much darker and easier to see. All of this prompted me to suspect
that Bennett really heard pretty much the same shooting sequence that
the other witnesses did.

Fortunately, the Altgens photo once again, comes to our rescue. By
blowing up the portion of the photo where Bennett can be seen in the
security car, we can get a pretty good idea of his orientation. Although
his facial features are indistinct, Bennett's Secret Service standard
issue, black necktie and white shirt make it clear that at Z255, he was
still turned to his right, exactly as he said he was prior to turning
back toward the front.

These visual confirmations provide a very powerful corroboration for
those witnesses. For them to have all been mistaken, they would each
have had to have made two distinct and different errors.

First, they would have had to have overlooked one early rifle shot
completely. Then, they would have had to have suffered the delusion that
they they heard a nonexistent shot at the end of the attack.

The Secret Service agents were by far the best witnesses in DP that day.
They were not there to chit chat with their friends. They were there for
the solitary purpose of looking and listening for trouble. For them to
have made such outrageous mistakes would suggest that they needed
professional help - just like almost everyone else that day:-)

In case anyone has the doubts that the limo passengers were startled by a loud noise at frame 285, a close look at Kellerman's reactions should lay them to rest.

As he ducked, he Kellerman simultaneously raised his hand (for 5/18ths of a second) to his left ear. At the same time, he twisted his head to his right and raised his shoulders upward - also for a fraction of a second. That is a classic startle reaction as confirmed by Landis and Hunt, the foremost experts to study human startle responses. (I cite them in the video segment).

Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front seat of the presidential limousine is by any standard, a five star witnesses - first, because he was a Secret Service agent whose job was, to keep and eye and an ear out for trouble.

Also, he was totally consistent with most of the other witnesses, who heard exactly the same spacing between the shots that he did.

Even more importantly, he was visible in the Zapruder film, so we can easily match up his testimony, with his actions. To put it another way, Kellerman did more than just tell us when shots were fired, he SHOWED us.

Kellerman stated that the time between the first noise/shot he heard and the second, was about 5 seconds.

"Mr. SPECTER. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that. "

He described the final shots like this, "a flurry of shells come into the car" and "..it was like a double bang--bang, bang."

Even more convincing than his testimony, are his visible actions in the Zapruder film. During the attack, he ducked only twice - within a tiny fraction of a second following the shot at 285 and again, almost immediately following the headshot at 313. This animation makes that very clear,

The three of them reacted simultaneously with Bill greer, who began to spin around so rapidly that some people thought his turn was humanly impossible. It was while he was spinning that in his panic, he accidentally lifted his foot from the gas, slowing the limousine.

More corroboration comes from Dr. Luis Alvarez, who concluded that both Greer and Abraham Zapruder reacted to a loud and startling noise at precisely, frame 285. He said that Zapruder reacted at frames 290-291. The limo passengers began to reaction at 290-292.

Watch that first animation again. Like Kellerman who ducked twice, Greer spun around from rear to front in perfect unison with Kellerman and the two ladies, as they dropped their heads.

In addition to ducking, Kellerman also exhibited other reactions which are textbook examples of startle responses to a loud noise. As he dropped his head, he raised his hand to shield his left ear, and hunched his shoulders upward and forward - exactly as described by Landis and Hunt, in their universally accepted textbooks.

As we go through the other visible, surviving witnesses in the limo, we will find almost perfect consistency among them. Each, heard only one early shot and were oblivious to the shot at frame 223, even Governor Connally who was hit by it. And with only the exception of Gov. Connally, who was about to pass out then, each described two shots which were fired at the end of the attack, or well after frame 223.

That doesn't mean there was no shot at 223; there obviously was. But it was not heard by the large majority of witnesses, as the Warren Commission confirmed, or by anyone in the limousine. Oswald's rifle was proven to generate an ear shattering, 130 decibels at ground level. The idea that one of his shots went unnoticed is beyond ludicrous.

At the very least, that shot was not fired by Oswald.

One last point to cover a loose end - one might wonder how we can be sure that the solitary early shot that was audible, was not the one at 223, rather than the one just prior to that, probably circa 150-160.

Mrs. Kennedy, SA George Hickey and SA Paul Landis, all stated that they turned to their right, in reaction to the only early shot that they heard. In the Zapruder film, we can see each of them turning exactly as they described, well before frame 223. Ergo, the earlier shot was audible to them, but not the one at 223. Governor Connally reported exactly the same thing. He heard the earlier shot, but not the one at 223.

One might argue that someone heard the opposite, that 223 was audible to them, and 150-160 was not, but that seems highly improbable and even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact that none of the early shots came from a high powered rifle.

Bill Greer, the driver of the President's limousine, is another five star witness. He was a Secret Service agent, trained to keep a sharp eye and ear out for trouble. And his testimony about the spacing of the shots was corroborated by the others in the limousine, as well as the large consensus of witnesses throughout Dealey Plaza.

More important however, is that we can see his reactions in the Zapruder film. It is the combination of what he said and what we see him do, that provides the most powerful corroborations of all.

Greer said he heard a "noise" after the limo turned onto Elm St. which he did not recognize as a gunshot,

"Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen."

He reported hearing no other shots, prior to the very end of the attack - more from his testimony.

"Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?

Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds."

And this is how he described the second and third shots that he heard,

"Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?

Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other"

It is easy to see Greer react to both of the shots at frames 285 and 312, in an identical manner - by spinning from the rear to the front at enormous speed - so fast, that some Warren Commission critics thought his turns were physically impossible (they weren't, as I was able to confirm). I posted this Zapruder film segment, to show Roy Kellerman ducking in reaction to each of the two shots, but you can just as easily, see Greer's reactions, spinning in perfect tandem with Kellerman ducking. (This animation needs to load and will only run properly, the second time it cycles.)

Dr. Luis Alvarez, a brilliant, Nobel prize winning physicist who analyzed the frames from the Zapruder film, determined that in his panic, Greer inadvertently lifted his foot from the gas, causing the limo to slow down. He also concluded that both Greer and Zapruder were reacting to a loud noise at precisely frame 285 which he speculated, was a siren. Today, pretty much everyone on both sides of the conspiracy debate, agrees that no sirens were heard then. And the witnesses, both in and out of the limo, made it very clear that the noise they were hearing, was a gunshot - not a siren.

But Greer made a statement which seems to contradict his testimony regarding the spacing of the shots. He said,

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally."

It's hard to be precise, but in the Zapruder film, we see him turn to his right to look to the rear at approximately frame 268-270, well before 285 and 313. If he heard a second shot earlier than that, the last two were certainly not "simultaneously, one behind the other", as he stated. So, which is correct?

In addition to the overwhelming consensus of the other witnesses, Greer provides us with conclusive evidence to resolve this issue. As we can easily see in the Zapruder film, he actually turned to the rear twice - once before and once after frame 285. So either way, he did as he said, turning "after I heard the second one". But the clincher comes in this paragraph,
"The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it."

Greer's statement that he was turned around when he heard that second shot, makes it easy to determine whether he was hearing a shot at 223 or at 285, the two candidates for the second shot that he was referring to. Although his face is a bit indistinct then, it is easy to see from the position of his tie, that at 223, he was still turned to the front.

The "concussion" he felt, could only have been the shock wave of the passing bullet, a phenomenon that is both heard and felt by people who are near the path of a supersonic bullet. There is just just no other plausible explanation for it.

It was in 1993 that another brilliant physicist, Dr. Michael Stroscio Phd, suggested that the noise at 285 was the shot that missed the President and went on to strike the pavement, causing James Tague's minor wound. Keep in mind, that the "angular acceleration" he describes at frame 290, was the reaction to the noise/shot at 285.

"Since the angular acceleration pattern beginning at frame 290 is consistent with that expected from a shot from the general direction of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) it may be that the jerking episode starting at frame 290 is associated with the bullet which caused the fragment that struck James Tague in the cheek.. a projectile moving to the west at the time of frame 290 would have likely caused a direct shock-wave interaction with A. Zapruder's camera; this is entirely consistent with the angular acceleration pattern commencing at frame 290."

And of course, Tague himself, said it was the second shot that caused him to be nicked by a tiny piece of debris.

"Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards."

So the evidence is quite consistent that the "concussion" Greer felt from the second shot, was the shock wave of the bullet that went on to strike the pavement, where it shattered, causing a tiny piece of debris to nick Tague, and a larger chunk of lead (perhaps the entire bullet core) to strike the Main St. curbing, where it left a smear of lead.

So, to sum things up so far. Greer said he heard a solitary, early noise, followed by a delay, and then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack, pretty much like everyone else who commented on the shots.

And he felt the "concussion" of the passing bullet from the second shot. In the Zapruder film, I have found no visible evidence of anyone being hit at frame 285. So, it seems that this shot missed everyone, but did indeed, go on to cause Jame Tague to be nicked in the cheek, resulting in a tiny trickle of blood.

As one of my earliest critics, Cary Zeitlin used to say, "For a conspiracy theory to be true, it must be coherent. All of the pieces must fit.".

According to the Warren Commission, "most" of the relevant witnesses said they heard a single early shot and then a pair of closely bunched shots at the very end of the attack.

If they were correct about the closely bunched shots at the end, and those shots came from unsuppressed, high powered rifles, we should expected to see two distinct sets of startle reactions following each of them.

The sonic boom created by the passing projectile didn't produce a 130 Db report either.

First of all, the "sonic boom" IS the shock wave

And second, you need to actually read my statements that you wish to attack. This if from Dr. Berger, testifying before the HSCA.

The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet..

He continued,

The shock wave is a very sharp event looking something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels. Now let me just briefly describe the decibel as a measure of acoustical intensity. The reference pressure for the decibels that I describe is 2 times 10 to the minus 5 newtons per square meter the currently standard reference pressure. With respect to that pressure, the shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzleblast at 30 feet is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels.

The shock wave emanates from the bullet itself, NOT from the muzzle. And in fact, the people in the limo were probably less than 10 feet from the path of the 285 bullet, which missed the President and went on to cause James Tague's minor wound.

The muzzle blast however, does diminish with distance, but the shock wave was a sharper sound, which arrived a few milliseconds earlier.

Yawn.. it is so tiring, hearing these ambiguous accusations that you couldn't prove to save your life.

I asked you three times about them, pointing out your errors and asking you to go into more detail on the science. You ignored all three times. I gave you a counterexample. You ignored that too. So following all that evasion, I made up my mind regarding your ability. You're clearly not interested in discussing the appropriate sciences, and your misuse of their terminology suggests the lack of interest derives from your lack of competence. Your disinterest does not constitute any failure on my part. You have the burden to show you are competent. Your unwillingness to shoulder it does not obligate anyone else to prove anything.

Quote:

The reactions of the people closest to JFK will tell you when high powered rifle shots were fired and when they weren't.

Circular reasoning.

Quote:

I don't think so. If that were true, you wouldn't have to be vague about those "two principles" that you think, require expert analysis.

1. Accoustics.

2. Psychology, i.e., startle behavior.

Then I also added

3. Polygraphy.

I was never vague about them, as anyone who cares to read this thread will discover. Regarding the first, you simply cite the HSCA expert and go no further. Regarding the second, you reason in a circle. Regarding the third, you responded months ago to it with a hail of invective and have never dared discuss it again.

Quote:

Tell me Jay, do we require an expert...

You see Jay, not all analyses require experts.

More circular reasoning.

Quote:

Your pretense that expertise is required...

Not a pretense, but instead your own premise. You have no problem invoking experts in acoustics (Barger) and psychology (Landis, Hunt) as well as misapplied experts (Alvarez) and demanding that we accept their judgment on the three points I identify above. Your argument clearly rests upon the premise that expertise exists and is applicable. It rests further upon the presumption that the experts you yourself invoke somehow support your beliefs.

So no, you don't get to start with an authoritative-expert-judgment premise and then suddenly abandon the whole notion of expertise when it is shown that you don't have it, and thus sours your argument. Nor, if you argue that expertise is not needed, can you then simply deny the "natural" judgment of your critics whom you've dismissed as idiots for disagreeing with you. If no expertise is needed then their judgment (in a far greater majority than yours) is as good or better than yours.

As has been belabored, your claim rests in large measure upon expertise you claim to have but do not. Denying that you're attempting to apply expert judgment doesn't help your argument.

WOW!! So you think he has proven that there were only two shots fired that day!

And that there was no shot fired, prior to frame 223?

And that the large consensus of witnesses who reported closely bunched shots at the end, were just confused and only heard one, but thought that when a bullet struck the head, they were hearing a second, high powered rifle shot?

I guess the fact that there were six simultaneous reactions, prior to the 313 headshot, is just an unimportant detail, right?

I am still waiting for you to present any documentation showing that "spinning around" can be a reflex startle reaction, in the precise sense of a spasmodic, involuntary movement.

I already did. In McAdams' forum, I cited Britannica, stating that a symptom of startle reactions is "a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.". Avoidance can be in the vertical or horizontal planes. If they were ONLY referring to a vertical, ducking movement, they would have said so.

Involuntarily turning the head away from the source of a loud noise, is a startle reaction, just like ducking. The test is simple. If the reaction began within a third of a second following the provocation, it is involuntary and therefore, a startle reaction.

Furthermore, I showed you an example of a startled basketball player, spinning around in direct reaction to the explosion of the ball, when another player overinflated it.

Count the frames. At 30fps, it is clear that he lifted his foot to begin to turn his head away from the source of the noise, well within one third of one second. It is equally clear that this was an avoidance movement.

And the simple task of determining that each of those reactions began in perfect unison with one another, and Abraham Zapruder, who reacted at frame 290-291 - exactly the instant in which the limo passengers reacted.

Pretending that we are unable to look for similar reactions, prior to these frames is nothing more than one more very lame excuse for evading the question.

Quote:

Of listing other possibilities. (As people reacting to somebody in the car is apparently impossible?)

So, you think that Roy Kellerman shielded his ear for 5/18ths of one second because he saw JFK and Connally in distress?

I think that would be a great topic for debate, don't you?

Quote:

So let's take another trip around the Mobius loop.

Robert. Supply ANY kind of physical evidence for additional bullets then we can consider if it is a good explanation for the "reactions" you have thus far convinced nobody of.

First, it is just silly to claim that I have "convinced nobody". After more than 12 million views of my video presentations, the overwhelming majority of those who rated them, were positive.

But it wouldn't matter if they were totally negative. All that matters are the facts and evidence.

Even without all the corroborations of the scientists, the limo passengers, the Dealey Plaza witnesses and the absence of startle reactions to the early shots, this short Zapruder segment settles the conspiracy question, once and for all.

Robert, you sit in the front seat and let me pelt you with warm blood, brain, and skull fragments. Try not to hunch your shoulders!

Everything you post is your opinion. You don't post facts or evidence, you post your invalid interpretation of evidence.

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

Hank has won on every point he's argued with you. He must have better things to do now.

I've read these arguments over and over and have repeatedly explained why they fail to convince me.
You have merely ignored my responses, and continue to repeat yourself as if you have never been answered.

Is is not a "germaine" question. It is a sleezy tactic, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

You knew very well, that her name is unknown. If it wasn't, you probably would have demanded DNA evidence, or whatever else, you knew did not exist.

These are junior high school debate tactics. It is what the nurse said and did, that matters. And that was confirmed by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas District Attorney and the police officer who was guarding Connally at the time.

"your little story"??

Is this how you think important issues should be resolved? When do you start with "Na, na na na na"?

It is not the nurse's fault that her name was not mentioned by the witnesses. All that matters is what she said and did.

Well I should say so. And very convincing too! Since all you have is *claims* of what "she" did.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Connally SAW her her pick the bullet up.

...Said his ghostwritten autobiography giving a story that he *nowhere* testified to in life.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Wade SAW the bullet in her hand.

...At least that's how he remembered it decades later.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Audrey Bell, whose name we DO know, confirmed that she was not the one who gave her fragments to Nolan, as the FBI claimed..

...Glad we know her name and her story, given to the ARRB some 30 years later. Now what's the name of "that nurse" again?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

We also know the names of the four men who examined CE399 and refused to confirm that it was the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered..

...Refused Bob? Or could not positively identify? Citation please!

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And we know the names of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, who said that they initialed the original bullet, but whose initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.

...So I've heard. But having never examined the original I cannot positively verify they are not really there, or that they are there, but not correctly identified. Have you ever had the opportunity to do more than study the photos I've seen you post before?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

If you want to involve yourself in this, in any meaningful way, address the actual facts and evidence and stop trying to divert the discussion to totally irrelevant issues.

Hilarious! I see you didn't quote me in full. I don't blame you. It spells out the rather obvious reasons it's an important matter. Let me repeat:

Nice way to side-step an obviously germane question. The issue is *not* whether we would believe her claims if we knew her name; for how could we possibly assess the credibility of an unnamed actor in your little story?

The issue is that mysterious "unnamed" characters who play a key role in a story that, AFAIK, only one human being on the planet is telling, are more indicative of a homespun yarn, than a sober fact of history to be reckoned upon.

You may vigorously disagree with that characterization, but if people came to you with an important pro-LN story that was supported by 30-40 year old recollections and an appeal to an anonymous cop, I'm pretty sure you'd get the relevance of that analogy to legend much quicker.

...And I have zero doubt that you do, in fact, get it. But it is not *convenient* for you to admit the validity of the point.

Last edited by BT George; 5th October 2015 at 03:29 PM.
Reason: The above failed to preserve the quotes around Robert's words I was addressing.

Is is not a "germaine" question. It is a sleezy tactic, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

You knew very well, that her name is unknown.

...Strange, that.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

If it wasn't, you probably would have demanded DNA evidence, or whatever else, you knew did not exist.

...Well it would help better than just having "that nurse" lynch pin your beliefs.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

These are junior high school debate tactics. It is what the nurse said and did, that matters. And that was confirmed by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas District Attorney and the police officer who was guarding Connally at the time.

...And a strange little collection of 30-40 year old memories all.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

"your little story"??

Is this how you think important issues should be resolved? When do you start with "Na, na na na na"?

It is not the nurse's fault that her name was not mentioned by the witnesses. All that matters is what she said and did.

...Well I should say so. And very convincing too! Since all you have is *claims* of what "she" did.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Connally SAW her her pick the bullet up.

...Said his ghostwritten autobiography giving a story that he *nowhere* testified to in life.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Wade SAW the bullet in her hand.

...At least that's how he remembered it decades later.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Audrey Bell, whose name we DO know, confirmed that she was not the one who gave her fragments to Nolan, as the FBI claimed.

...Glad we know her name and her story, given to the ARRB some 30 years later. Now what's the name of "that nurse" again?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

We also know the names of the four men who examined CE399 and refused to confirm that it was the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.

...Refused Bob? Or could not positively identify? Citation please!

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And we know the names of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, who said that they initialed the original bullet, but whose initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.

...So I've heard. But having never examined the original I cannot positively verify they are not really there, or that they are there, but not correctly identified. Have you ever had the opportunity to do more than study the photos I've seen you post before?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

If you want to involve yourself in this, in any meaningful way, address the actual facts and evidence and stop trying to divert the discussion to totally irrelevant issues.

All rather interesting! But I see you never quoted me in full. I don't blame you. It spells out the rather obvious reasons it's an important matter. Let me repeat:

Nice way to side-step an obviously germane question. The issue is *not* whether we would believe her claims if we knew her name; for how could we possibly assess the credibility of an unnamed actor in your little story?

The issue is that mysterious "unnamed" characters who play a key role in a story that, AFAIK, only one human being on the planet is telling, are more indicative of a homespun yarn, than a sober fact of history to be reckoned upon.

You may vigorously disagree with that characterization, but if people came to you with an important pro-LN story that was supported by 30-40 year old recollections and an appeal to an anonymous cop, I'm pretty sure you'd get the relevance of that analogy to legend much quicker.

...And I have zero doubt that you do, in fact, get it. But it is not *convenient* for you to admit the validity of the point.

I was going to ignore this nonsense, but if nothing else, it might present a useful tutorial on evidence, for George.

It will also give me another chance to go through evidence I have presented, which some of the more radical of my adversaries continue to pretend, does not exist.

Let me begin by emphasizing that I am quite certain there was a shot at 223. This about comparing the evidence for that shot with the evidence for a shot at 285. So, let's begin.

...LOL! No. You should begin by having a *CLUE* as to what the other poster is even talking about. Your confusion (I suppose it's that.) is manifest by the below citation statement alone

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

BT, you need to cite the portion of "His Parkland medical report" that supports a shot at 223. Please post it verbatim..

No sir. You need to cite verbatim just where I said---or even implied---that these documents supported the particular shot frame 223. Or where I even vaguely hinted that the precise moment the back/neck wound occurred was evident from the medical or autopsy evidence.

What I DID indicate that these records *clearly* establish is the kind of REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING EVIDENCE that JFK was wounded in the neck by a bullet that passed near his spine, and thus based on such a trauma, it is to be EXPECTED that somewhere in the Zfilm JFK might be seen reacting in PRECISELY the way he does around Z226.

So the actual point was to contrast the hard evidence that underlies the conclusion that JFK was reacting in frame 226 to his being wounded vs. the "hard" "evidence" for your Z285 shot. Which is namely:

____________________________________________.

And since that is indeed the only "hard" "evidence" that underlies your supposed shot at Z285, it's why I also said:

....SO NOW IS THE TIME WHEN BOB SAYS---> "Errr…Let’s go back to arguing REAL facts like startle reactions and 1/6 of a second and shock waves and storm drains!"

...Which you PRECISELY corroborate every time you begin citing your interpretation of the scientists positions, your beliefs on the character and meaning of the witness testimonies, the movements of the limo passengers and Zapruder and your take on their meaning, and bolster it all by applying your own layman's take on the physics involved in high powered rifle shots.

Dr. Berger was setting forth a method he believed could fix the location of a hypothetical second shooter by time differential between the muzzle blast and the missile shock cone. While the single data point he presents for the rifle in question has quantities associated with it, he does not discuss the quantitative aspects of the two measurements.

He does not provide the authority you seek for the alleged strength of the shock wave at arbitrary distances in your model.

Quote:

The muzzle blast however, does diminish with distance, but the shock wave was a sharper sound, which arrived a few milliseconds earlier.

Does the projectile shock wave also diminish with distance?
Is the pressure wave from a projectile shock cone isotropic?

Furthermore, I showed you an example of a startled basketball player...

You have shown us several examples, none of which were conclusive because there were conflicting data points such as other people in the frames not exhibiting a reaction.

Have you, Robert Harris, ever submitted to an independent test of your own ability to determine -- from video alone (no audio) -- whether a person depicted in the video is reacting to a loud noise? If so, what was your score? If not, how can you assure us that your purported ability is genuine?

I already did. In McAdams' forum, I cited Britannica, stating that a symptom of startle reactions is "a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head.". Avoidance can be in the vertical or horizontal planes. If they were ONLY referring to a vertical, ducking movement, they would have said so.

The reference is clearly to the same involuntary contraction of certain muscles described more amply in all the other literature on startle reactions. It is a particular "spasmodic avoidance motion." Nowhere will you find spinning around such as Greer does described as an example of such.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Involuntarily turning the head away from the source of a loud noise, is a startle reaction, just like ducking. The test is simple. If the reaction began within a third of a second following the provocation, it is involuntary and therefore, a startle reaction.

Wrong. People can react consciously and voluntarily more quickly than that.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Furthermore, I showed you an example of a startled basketball player, spinning around in direct reaction to the explosion of the ball, when another player overinflated it.

This was still more proof that you do not know the difference between voluntary and involuntary (spasmodic) actions.

And second, you need to actually read my statements that you wish to attack. This if from Dr. Berger, testifying before the HSCA.

The shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the trajectory of the bullet..

He continued,

The shock wave is a very sharp event looking something like the letter "N," capital letter"N"and in this case, with this weapon, the peak pressure of the shockwave is 130 decibels. Now let me just briefly describe the decibel as a measure of acoustical intensity. The reference pressure for the decibels that I describe is 2 times 10 to the minus 5 newtons per square meter the currently standard reference pressure. With respect to that pressure, the shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzleblast at 30 feet is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels.

The shock wave emanates from the bullet itself, NOT from the muzzle. And in fact, the people in the limo were probably less than 10 feet from the path of the 285 bullet, which missed the President and went on to cause James Tague's minor wound.

The muzzle blast however, does diminish with distance, but the shock wave was a sharper sound, which arrived a few milliseconds earlier.

You have no idea what you're talking about

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

The sound of the supersonic rifle caliber projectile itself is no louder than a hand clap. The muzzle blast from the expanding gasses propelling the projectile are the source of the primary sound pressure wave - all a suppressor does is slow the expansion of the gases to quiet the firearm in question.

01) What do sound suppressors do? 10/22/2012
There are four noises which make up the “boom” one hears when shooting a firearm. The first is the action noise (i.e.: the hammer hitting the firing pin, the slide/bolt cycling, gas escaping though the ejection port). The second is the bullet flight noise. If the round travels faster than the speed of sound, which is approximately 1050fps, there will be an audible “crack” heard by the shooter and those the projectile passes. The third is the bullet striking the target. The last noise associated with the firing of a firearm is the combustion noise hitting the atmosphere when the projectile leaves the barrel. The gasses that pushed the projectile from the barrel are going faster than the speed of sound and typically still burning. The “boom” of the gasses hitting the atmosphere is typically louder than the other noises, which is why the boom generally is all the shooter and those near the shooter hear.

Firearm silencers work in the same manner as mufflers for cars and lawn mowers. Both provide a controlled environment in which the gasses can expand and cool before exiting into the air with less energy and noise. A typical silencer has a casing segregated into chambers by partitions called baffles. Each baffle has a passage through which a projectile can pass. When the host weapon is fired, the projectile exits the barrel and passes through the length of the silencer, but the gases that propel the projectile expand into the baffled chambers where they are temporarily trapped. When they do find their way out of the silencer, the gases have slowed considerably and thus produce less sound.

21) How much sound can I expect to reduce from my gun? 10/22/2012
There is a bit of a technical description of Decibels in the answer for question #2. To recap, three decibels will basically double or half the amount of sound. By way of example there, a 16” 5.56mm AR15 type rifle is approximately 165dB, a 10” 5.56mm AR type rifle is approximately 168db, or roughly twice as loud as the 16” rifle, all factors otherwise being equal. We went over that there are four sounds that occur, with the combustion noises being the loudest of the noises. Our catalog lists the amount of sound reduction, as well as the host/silencer/ammunition combination used to get that result. You will note that the vast majority of the silencers in the 2012 catalog will get the sound of the gunshot below the 140dB, “Hearing Safe” level. By way of example, the M4-2000, when used on a 14.5” M4, will reduce the sound of the shot 32-34dB, which will take the hearing damaging sound down to the mid-130dB range. Even applied to the 10” barrel you get the rifle below 140dB when using the M4-2000. The simpler answer is that with the use a quality made silencer, you will be able to shoot your firearm without doing permanent hearing damage to you, your friends, your children, or in the case of first responders, your co-workers or the victims you are saving."

You see Jay, not all analyses require experts. Like those and similar issues in the Zapruder film, some thing are so ridiculously obvious that a graduation from junior high school, is not necessary to make an accurate call.

Your pretense that expertise is required in these issues is just an excuse to avoid answering the tough questions - the ones that prove you are wrong.

Tell me Tom, why do you think the woman in black at the far, right side of this video, simultaneously ducked, raised her hand to shield her ear and shrugged her shoulders upward for a fraction of a second?

Everything you post is your opinion. You don't post facts or evidence, you post your invalid interpretation of evidence.

That is untrue. The angles, the timing, the science, what the people in Dealey Plaza heard, and the simultaneous reactions of the limo passengers are all verifiable and testable.

So is the fact that no one was ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears, raising their shoulders, etc, prior to frame 285, and the fact that only one of the early shots was loud enough to be audible to most witnesses.

It is idiotic to think that Oswald fired the early shots. His gun generated sound levels 16 times greater than the level at which involuntary startle reactions will occur.

Rober, yet again, is standing on his stumps, looking at his severed arms and legs and shouting, "The Black Knight always triumphs1".

You seem to think that because Sandy managed to blurt out a ridiculous assertion, that this confirms a victory for your "side".

But if you think Hank proved his case, then perhaps you will answer the questions I asked Sandy. Take your time:

WOW!! So you think he has proven that there were only two shots fired that day!

And that there was no shot fired, prior to frame 223?

And that the large consensus of witnesses who reported closely bunched shots at the end, were just confused and only heard one, but thought that when a bullet struck the head, they were hearing a second, high powered rifle shot?

I guess the fact that there were six simultaneous reactions, prior to the 313 headshot, is just an unimportant detail, right?

Well I should say so. And very convincing too! Since all you have is *claims* of what "she" did.

That is correct and the claims by Connally, Wade and officer Nolan are virtually identical. Nolan corroborated Wade literally, word for word.

Your denial has nothing to do with the facts and evidence. It is entirely based on you not liking what they said.

Have you figured out yet, what happened to the initials of agent Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, neither of which are present on CE399?

Or why all four of the men who examined the stretcher bullet refused to confirm that it was CE399?

Or why the FBI phoned Tomlinson in the wee hours of the morning, immediately after receiving fragments that they could match up against his bullet and telling him to keep his mouth shut about it?

Or why the FBI lied about what supervisor Bell told them, claiming she said gave a single "fragment" to Nolan?

Bell BTW, told the HSCA the same thing she told the ARRB 20 years earlier.

I used to think it was an honest mistake that they referred to a single fragment, rather than four as can be easily seen in CE-842. But guess what - they made the same "mistake" when they interviewed doctor Gregory. This is from an FBI report dated 11/30/63.

Gregory testified before the WC, correctly describing multiple tiny fragments, but according to the FBI, he only talked about one.

He (Gregory) states surgery performed by him was done on the Governor's right arm, and that he removed from the arm a small fragment of metal. He stated the metal fragment was placed into a transparent container for preservation, and that during the operation, he recalled no other pieces or bits of metal being removed from the Governor's body.

Another honest mistake??

How about this then? The DPD (undoubtedly with the FBI's help) labelled CE-842 as containing only a single "fragment". Looking at the outside of the envelope, they would have seen the word "fragments". On the inside, four fragments, at least three of which were easily visible.

How certain are you that "most" of the witnesses that day were not correct in stating that there were closely bunched shots at the end of the attack?

How certain are you that most of the witnesses that day were not correct about only one of the early shots being audible to them?

How certain are you that scientists were not correct that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285, which caused Zapruder to react in the same 1/6th of one second that the limo passengers did?

How certain are you that bystanders were startled by 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots, fired prior frame 255?

No. You're begging the question and asking me to do the same thing. Then you're just repeating your claim that expertise is not required, even though you yourself invoke experts when making your points -- experts whose opinions you demand we respect (when you think they agree with you).

Please "continue" by answering the questions I already put to you previously, without further distraction and question-begging. I asked you some questions to test your knowledge of the physics of sound. You previously either answered these questions incorrectly or ignored them altogether. You have another chance. I have also asked whether there has previously been any objective test of your ability to determine from visuals alone whether someone has heard a gunshot.

Quote:

Your pretense that expertise is required in these issues is just an excuse to avoid answering the tough questions - the ones that prove you are wrong.

Please do not play games. It is not my pretense; it is your premise, created by your invocation of experts: Berger, Landis, Hunt, Alvarez, and others. In your arguments you step into the roles of these people that you cite and then, using your own judgment, in some cases pretend your conclusions are theirs and in other cases overrule them with your own "superior" insight.

Your case boils down to two essential points: (1) the purported certainty of audible gunshots, and (2) your personal ability to determine from silent film when someone has heard a gunshot. I am asking you fundamental questions about these two key points. If you are unwilling to answer them, then it appears I have no need to revise my conclusions regarding you and your claims.

You seem to think that because Sandy managed to blurt out a ridiculous assertion, that this confirms a victory for your "side".

But if you think Hank proved his case, then perhaps you will answer the questions I asked Sandy. Take your time:

WOW!! So you think he has proven that there were only two shots fired that day!

And that there was no shot fired, prior to frame 223?

And that the large consensus of witnesses who reported closely bunched shots at the end, were just confused and only heard one, but thought that when a bullet struck the head, they were hearing a second, high powered rifle shot?

I guess the fact that there were six simultaneous reactions, prior to the 313 headshot, is just an unimportant detail, right?

Or is it possible that you don't buy that crap, any more than I do, but since you think he's on your "side", you are forced to agree with him?

I am hard pressed to think of a worse reason to form a conclusion.

Actually, I think the case you have made is so weak that it's self refuting. Tne effort that many posters have made in refuting your story point by point is rather impressive, but really unnecessary. You started with pretty much nothing, and repeating it umpteen times while insisting that you have proven your case has not made your nothing into something. I find what you have presentted that you for some reason believe to be evidence of a shooter other than Oswald to be completely unconvinng. It's a heap of garbage, and it smells no better the tenth time you present ot than it did the first.

Tom, you seem to be a bit confused about how this works. Rather than complain that I ask you why we see no startle reactions prior to frame 285, you should answer answer the question.

How can I answer a broken question?

You haven't shown you can identify startle reactions. You have not shown that there should be startle reactions, or that their absence is a question that needs answering.

I think you are the one who is confused.

Show us physical evidence for more than three shots, and we can discuss if your narrative best fits that evidence.

Horse. Then Cart.

Not confusing at all.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

First, it is just silly to claim that I have "convinced nobody". After more than 12 million views of my video presentations, the overwhelming majority of those who rated them, were positive.

So, you can get somebody, anybody, to post here that they are convinced by this discussion? Go ahead. I am willing to retract my statement if you can show this conversation had convinced anybody reading it, of your claims.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

But it wouldn't matter if they were totally negative. All that matters are the facts and evidence.

But all you offer are opinions of how people should have reacted.

For your theory to convince you need physical evidence for the shots you claim. Then you can discuss if they best explain the reactions you think you see in a film.

That is all that matters.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

How certain are you that these reactions were not caused by a gunshot?

Burden of proof, burden of proof, burden of proof.

Show there was a gunshot to be reacted to, with physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

How certain are you that "most" of the witnesses that day were not correct in stating that there were closely bunched shots at the end of the attack?

You make the claim, you should be showing us the statistical majority of witness statements supporting this. Show us physical evidence those witnesses were indeed correct.

As it happens, one shot, a pause, then two shots in close succession is not an unreasonable interpretation of the facts. The three shots we have evidence for.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

How certain are you that most of the witnesses that day were not correct about only one of the early shots being audible to them?

I am absolutely certain that nobody heard the shots you can not prove existed. Because I am absolutely certain those shots were not there to be heard.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

How certain are you that scientists were not correct that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285, which caused Zapruder to react in the same 1/6th of one second that the limo passengers did?

It has been stated that people are willing to accept this.
There were likely many noises on that day. Unfortunately "loud and startling noise" does not always mean "gunshot".

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).